Broadway bound Jekyll & Hyde gets negative reviews in Chicago - Page 3

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 11:19pm

"I can't speak for all, but some on here are highly qualified and were screened before being picked to write for BWW."

'Some' being the key word.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 3/18/13 at 11:44pm

For the record, I don't hate Wildhorn. I love many of his songs as stand alone pieces and his collaborations with Eder make me very happy.

For the record, I hated this "revisal". Total junk. So don't lump me in with people who have it out for Wildhorn. Also, I own most of Cox's recordings. Again, I thought she sang well but was an awful actress.

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 3/20/13 at 12:35pm

Saw the show last night and, honestly, I cannot figure out how I felt about it. I had never seen a production of the show before, but was familiar with a few of the songs. I felt like the production was very clunky (much to the fault of the written show) and the direction was less than inspired, but I walked out of the theatre happy that I saw it. After the show I said to my girlfriend, “I know that was bad…but I am glad we went.” I found myself continuing to root for the production throughout the show, although I am not sure what was keeping me hanging on. I think the production has some potential, but it doesn’t sound like they will reach that potential by the time they get to Broadway.

The most blatant criticism I have is the projections during “Confrontation” (like, it seems, many others). I thought the projections worked quite well for the rest of the show, but these were so distracting and extreme I am surprised no one on that creative team tried to pull them (or, perhaps, they did).

I agree with much of Chris Jones’ review (who I also appreciate as a critic – I, usually but not always, find his criticism constructive and I feel like he often looks for how a show could improve as opposed to just writing shows off completely), although strongly disagree with his statement about Deborah Cox being the best one up there. I definitely didn’t think she was awful, but I would not pick her out above the rest. Perhaps she was having an off-night, but she looked bored onstage (and her reaction to receiving the money from Jekyll – an almost Ralphie-esque smile out to the audience – seemed almost as if she was making fun of the moment). Great voice and a decent actress, I just felt she was miscast and out of it onstage.

In fact, the whole cast seemed a little beaten down – and, I can’t blame them. I imagine going from city to city and getting tepid reviews would likely have that effect. I must also mention I went on a cold Tuesday night, with a small audience that was nearly dead. My heart nearly broke for the cast in moments like when Constantine would belt out an end note, clearly giving his all, and would be received with just a smattering of applause. However, from all of the comments of those around me, the audience seemed to enjoy it.

I think that the cast gave it their all (Constantine definitely seemed to giving the most energy out of everyone last night), but, things just didn’t click with this production. However, that didn’t stop me from being entertained the whole time and enjoying myself at the theatre.

(On a bit of a side note, I find the Cadillac Palace’s sound system awful and always have. It’s more noticeable with some shows than others, but for years I have had trouble with the audio in this theatre. I don’t know much about the sound world, but it seems like they can never get the mix quite right – the orchestra is either too soft or too loud and, instead of all of the voices blending with the instruments as one cohesive sound, they all seem separated from each other.)

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 7:12pm

I saw this last night and I had a good time with it. My biggest doubts were with Constantine. He ended up really surprising me and really sold the show. Teal Wicks was also great, and Ms. Cox was a serviceable Lucy. The ensemble was actually quite good.

I enjoyed the Downton Abbeyness of the Facade numbers. For the most part the staging worked well. The set isn't really anything to write home about, but it gets the point across. The projections were occasionally distracting, which leads me to The Confrontation. This is the one scene that needs the most work before they take this to New York. The Confrontation was a huge cheese fest. The projections in this scene are awful and the staging ridiculous. Same for the audio effects on Hyde's voice. I understand what they were going for in this scene, but it really didn't work. I would rather have the hair ballet.

I am certain that the critics will be far more negative than I, but if you are even a casual fan of the show, it is worth a watch.

[BigRed]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 8:35pm

I saw it Wednesday night and overall did not love the production. I think it's a great show and was definitely disappointed with many aspects of the show. Deborah Cox was out for both shows on Wednesday and Emmy Raver-Lampman was on as Lucy and was definitely the best part of the show. Teal Wicks was also very strong as Emma.

I just didn't like how they updated many of the songs to a more rock feel. It really didn't work. They ruined the song Murder, Murder in the opening of Act II and really could have made the ensemble numbers a lot stronger. Also, I didn't mind any of the projections with the set until the confrontation song/scene which was probably the cheesiest thing they could have done.

It was just disappointing to me since I think this is such a unique, dark show and they really could have done cool things with this revival, but it really fell flat. Also, I watched at least 4 couples leave at intermission and 3 couples walk out during Act II, which I've never seen before. I don't think some of the older audience members were enjoying some of the more updated, rock music.

[philly03]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 8:46pm

Voice-wise, I'm worried about Deborah Cox's the most - seems like she missed quite a few shows. She certainly gives it her all in her performance. The role of Lucy is obviously meant to showcase.. and when she is in she doesn't disappoint. (I wonder if she or Constantine will be getting a alternate on B'way)

I have also seen Emmy but she had several lyric flubs, short notes, etc. This revival is so "driven" and "rewritten" for the stars, it looks a lot lackluster without one of them.

I also think Teal Wicks does a great job - but the role is nearly pointless in this incarnation. Strong voice, but nothing to do.

RE: Confrontation - they had to record the actors (Constantine + understudies) in front of green screens, then adapt to the projections... Perhaps they didn't have enough time/location during the course of the tour to re-do them.

[BigRed]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 9:09pm

The projections were well done, I just thought the whole confrontation section was way too much. And on Wednesday Emmy sounded absolutely amazing and didn't have any mishaps. I know she's gone on a couple times at this point so she's probably a little bit more comfortable now.

When I walked in there were a couple people disappointed that Cox was out and got refunds since she is billed above the title. However, In my opinion, I think Emmy probably gave a better vocal performance anyway.

[Marlothom]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 9:33pm

I saw this yesterday - I had seen the Broadway run with the original cast and was bored by that production, particularly by Eder who I found to be giving a concert performance. In that regard, I liked that this revival cast was at least acting - though maybe too much. My biggest problem with this production was the accents. Cox comes across like Nancy from Oliver and there were several lines/lyrics that were not easily understood.

Overall, I was disappointed by this revival. While I may contradicting myself here, I think the biggest selling point of this musical is the music (not the lyrics). This revival and its stars try too hard to make the songs "their own" and not for the better.

I appreciated the cast hard work, especially Constantine who I found to be in great voice. I am glad the crowd which had been lukewarm (at best) rewarded him with a standing O.

I did not like Cox's interpretation of Lucy. Even Eder treated Hyde's aggression with secret pleasure (eyes closed mostly), but Cox screams and moans in pain which makes you feel uncomfortable when she is getting her hair pulled, or choked, etc. People did not know whether to clap or not at the end of some songs.

I wish they had really made this a re-imagining of the show. I wish they had pushed it to present or future times. Imagine DNA testing/cloning/etc - gotten rid of the accents and a right fit for the "rock feel" they are trying to push.

Finally, was this show supposed to be happening in the mind of Jekyll's crazy father?

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 3/22/13 at 10:57pm

Does it still have the flaming eyeballs during Confrontation?

[philly03]

Posted: 3/23/13 at 12:23am

Marlothom, to be honest, this production/cast are directed to "soothe" the voices of Constantine and Deborah, ie "rock" and "soul." Even the understudies are coached to perform as such.

I also, contrary to you, found Constantine's performance more "concert," than Linda Eder was in the original and Deborah Cox in this version (aside from her "Someone Like You"), particular at the end of his big numbers "This is the Moment" and "The Way Back"... but I still very much thought he was terrific in the role.

My only problem with Cox's performance is when she receives the money from Jekyll... Instead of being upset (in every past production) about that she can never have Jekyll, Cox's Lucy is happy to get the letter.


Also Marlothom - a company in London (Jekyll never played on the West End) did update Jekyll to modern times, though there's not too much information on it. I think it would've been interesting to update it as well.

[Marlothom]

Posted: 3/23/13 at 10:00am

Thanks Philly -[spoiler, I guess] did you also find it odd that the father in the straight jacket comes out at the end? That is what prompted me to think all this happened in his head, and why the Confrontation/trippy issues were justified.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 3/23/13 at 7:57pm

I still like the show, and I root for the people in and responsible for the show and empathize with them thinking how they must feel reading such negative remarks - even those from anonymous Joes here. I can guess how disheartening it is to work hard on a show and read some people think the show is so worthless they need to trouble themselves to tell a message board community they think the recent incarnation is a pile of poo. Not liking the show and even communicating that fact is not a problem, but couldn't more tact be used? Shouldn't it be used?

You wouldn't go out of your way to tell the people in person their show is a pile of poo, why do it here anonymously? (I would hope) You wouldn't want to set that example for kids, so why risk actually setting that example? You don't think teenagers (and younger) read these boards? Is this the sort of behavior you would accept from your own children? "Don't worry about it son, you're anonymous on the internet so don't worry about being tactful."

Hey select teeanagers in Steubenville, does this sound like your parents?

[Pauly3]

Posted: 3/23/13 at 8:24pm

Now that my little rant is out of the way...

Like many, the confrontation is the thing I would like to see modified. However I think they should stick with the current method. I used to really like the method used in the original Broadway and subsequent tour versions, however that now seems even more far fetched than the current version. In the original Broadway version, having the two characters battle it out center stage is more over the top. One could argue that battle takes place in Jekyll’s head, but that’s not the take I get...the portrayal is just too much of a dual-personality fight with each other – and played out as if the two personalities are actually taking turns coming out. Maybe that was the intent, maybe not?

With the current version, the battle is more glaringly in Jekyll’s head. The over the top special effects reinforce the madness....in Jekyll’s head. This, to me, is a good departure from the dual personalities actually battling. I think they should play this angle up more. I would go so far as to have Jekyll writhing on the floor, grabbing at his face and screaming “PLEASE GOD, MAKE IT STOP”. At the same time, I would scale back (not eliminate) the special effects, both audio and video. I suggest removing the flames, Hyde’s face projections and the animated eyes that project to the sides, along with most of the audio enhancements. And then play out the scene more like the recording of Anthony Warlow where the music shines through as do the lyrics. This may take some special acting to pull off, but I think it’s doable. As the scene ends, I would leave the flaming explosion in as Jekyll defiantly refuses to let Hyde take over.

As the show exists - for me, the performances by themselves leave me very satisfied and very entertained. The story and even lyrics don't have to be first rate as long as the music and the performances are good throughout. And for me, this version of Jekyll & Hyde succeeds with both of the latter criteria to a high degree. The former are decent enough. I get this set of criteria isn't enough for many though – and that many don’t agree with me regarding the music or the performances.

[Jersey Girl2]

Posted: 3/24/13 at 8:49pm

>>>I'm worried about Deborah Cox's the most - seems like she missed quite a few shows.
They have been on the road since September. She was out in Philly in December ( I saw Emmy) and she was out in Chicago. I can not remember any others.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/24/13 at 9:32pm

Oh my Dog, you guys!

It's SO mean of you all to come to a theatre web site and trash a show! It must suck to be you!

Oh, and here's what I thought of the show, and how I would direct it...

[chinto1984]

Posted: 3/24/13 at 9:46pm

I have not seen the REVISED TOUR. I have only seen the Sacramento's Music Circus version and a recent college version. I was really looking forward to new album. I thought, "ooooo. Constantine and Deborah Cox." Then i was disappointed. I really like the album with Anthony Warlow, Linda, and Carolee. Anyways, watching the musical I never enjoy it as much as I enjoy listening to it. I really want to enjoy it, but the writing is SO flawed. It just exposes weakness like no other. If I could, I would still like to see this revised version.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/24/13 at 9:53pm

Yes, because discussing a professional endeavor can, in any way, be compared to rape. Great rationale.

Nearly every person on these boards explains specifically WHY they do or do not like any given production. If PROFESSIONALS can't handle criticism, they are in the wrong field.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 3/25/13 at 11:10pm

Dramamama, there was no mention of or comparison to rape. And your leap to believing my remarks were from stupidity - and willingness to point it out with sarcasm isn’t any more appreciated than the “pile of poo” remark earlier in this thread. Perhaps I could have used a better example – so I will take a shot at clarifying.

The teenagers I referenced from Steubenville were a larger group of individuals who either made very poor choices right before the night a girl was raped, during or after that night. Some of that (varying degrees of) bad behavior involved social media. Some of those poor choices may have been (partially) as a result of a growing tolerance for suspect behavior towards others – in person or anonymously. My attempt was to point out that some behavior should not be tolerated so effortlessly. Why would we want to be part of the problem when it takes so little not to be? Why set the bad example and continue growing the tolerance for what will potentially evolve into more and more extreme bad examples?

To be clear, I do not have any problem with criticism – even when it’s 100% contrary to my own opinion. But why is it (apparently) unreasonable to want there to be some form of tact along with it? I know I may be overboard with this, but the way all too many people treat each other gets pretty disgusting all too often (in and out of this forum). The tolerance level goes up and so do (seemingly) the great many stories of children, teenagers and adults who can’t get along in society, thinking hate is OK, thinking the idea of peeing on a drunk girl is OK, thinking distributing pictures of said drunk girl with no clothes is OK, and so many other bad acts and crimes.

Is there a relationship between what every day behavior is tolerated today and these types of crimes and bad acts we hear in the news every day? I don’t know for sure, but I think the chance is decent enough that I don’t want to contribute to the ever increasing tolerance...and I would hope people here wouldn’t either. It’s likely false hope, I get that. It’s also very unfortunate.

That, in not so small a nutshell, is my beef and the reasons for it.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/25/13 at 11:29pm

Really? You bring up Steubenville and DON'T think people will think of RAPE? Without that horrible incident, no one would have cared about a bunch of HS kids getting drunk. Perhaps that isn't what you meant, but you surely see why your words would be misconstrued.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/25/13 at 11:30pm

Comparing a few negative reviews to raping a drunk girl is outrageous.


But, then, you just did.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 3/26/13 at 2:21am

NO COMPARISON to rape was being made. Yes, there was a very publicized rape in Steubenville. The reference to Steubenville had a CONTEXT though, one that you (Theatrediva at minimum) still seem to want to ignore in favor of attempting to make me look stupid or outrageous.

The actual context was the path - or rather POSSIBLE path of simple bad examples (e.g. distasteful language on a message board) being tolerated and accepted as normal behavior leading to increased severity of bad examples also leading to accpeted behavior, finally leading to not knowing where to draw the line in some situations and SOMEDAY MAYBE not being able to distinguish between whether raping a drunk girl is wrong or not - and/or any number of other despicable acts that occurred prior to, during and after a rape. I'm talking about learned behavior over many years - learned behavior from those who SHOULD know better and who SHOULD strive to not perpetuate this growing tolerance of bad behavior.

Dramamama, your statement that no one would have cared about a bunch of HS kids getting drunk is part of the problem - and seriously so. Why would a bunch of HS kids getting drunk be tolerated? IT (HIGH SCHOOL KIDS GETTING DRUNK) likely and very specifically lead to the rape in steubenville. Maybe if the tolerance level I keep mentioning had not gotten to the point where getting drunk was acceptable behavior for teenagers, perhaps that girl doesn't get raped.

My point is actions such as setting bad examples, even a little name calling, MAY have consequences and they MAY have POTENTIAL to become VERY serious if those little bad examples become not so little and continue to be acceptable. Call me crazy and out of my mind for thinking anyone will listen, but the motivation is genuine and with good intentions.

[philly03]

Posted: 3/26/13 at 4:55am

WOW - somehow Pauly3's comments will hurt the show again.

Make this thread about the new production of the musical, nothing else.

Is it perfect? No. Is it a "full" revisal? No. Is it the essential production for the next decade? Likely, but who knows.

Constantine Maroulis and Deborah Cox have been receiving wonderful reviews around the country together, and while the show could use a few more tune-ups, who can turn down two great stars together?!

[DEClarke]

Posted: 3/26/13 at 12:48pm

Pauly3, I can understand your frustration with people's behavior on this thread. I too have been there. Some posters excell at being nasty and mean. Just ignore them. The more you try to counter them, the more mud they sling. Some just want to hide behind their screen name and be mean. Others want to critically discuss shows. Others want to do both. Don't sweat the small stuff. Move on Their behavior is not inexcusable, but you, nor I, nor anybody else will be able to change it. But we can stop feeding it.

[RSrichie]

Posted: 3/26/13 at 3:55pm

This production is atrocious! Almost unwatchable. It's not a great show but has has some pretty pop songs, it is what it is. The original Broadway cast sang it spectacularly. The main problem here is Jeff Calhoun, I'm sorry but will someone stop him before he directs again. HE'S NOT GOOD! He wants this to be a rock opera and its not, it's just pathetic. The book is unbearable here. Deborah Cox is the only one worthwhile and the tempo of her songs are so slow they destroy interpretation. If you thought the original is bad, this piece of s**t is a waste of time and money!

[JBC2]

Posted: 3/26/13 at 5:26pm

I found the show to be very watchable. I also found that there are many outstanding performances, besides Deborah Cox. Teal Wicks is her usual amazing self, and Constantine's Hyde is powerful (I felt his Dr. Jekyll was too meek, but then, I saw the show 6 months ago, and perhaps things have changed).

I neither felt I wasted my money, nor time. In fact, I will be seeing the show again this week. I'm curious to see what changes have been made, and I'm also looking forward to hearing some great voices again.

I'm sorry you disliked the show so much, and I have posted before about my take on the show's imperfections, but it was a good evening at the theatre for me.